Comments on: The Washington Post Identifies Iraq War as a Pro-Israel Cause

By: Lihp

Lihp — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Phil – Why is it that a guy supposedly as bright as you, is constantly attemptins to reduce complex situations with complex factors, and multiple conflicting agendas into a simple black and white – "hey it's the damn jews, let's get them – no wait – it's those damns jews, go get them, but leave me alone" – explanation. You are becoming a real bore. You should one day be as intelligent as Todd Gitlin.

By: FurGaia

FurGaia — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Lihp, it's not just Phil …

And their Jewishness and identification with the Jewish state was coincidence? That's possible but I don't believe it.

Also, it's not helpful to cast this war as having been a Republican vs. Democrat debate. No big-name Democrat ever opposed the plan. A Democratically controlled Senate passed the war resolution. It was the "liberal" media that played a crucial role in getting the ball rolling.

It is just not true to say that there were MANY progressive [Jewish] voices who were publicly opposing the juggernaut. One of the advantages of having a media so generously endowed with Jewish voices is that we can get a pretty good idea of the community's position by going back and checking the record.

By: Phil Weiss

Phil Weiss — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Larry, Good analysis. And maybe I oversimplify, but the neocons I have known have always lived and breathed Jewish chauvinism. The stances I associate with the couple neox I know– anti-affirmative action, free Soviet Jewry, anti Soviet satellites– all involved Jewish questions. I have always wondered what else they cared about, and part of the fallout in the U.S. from the Iraq war is the (legitimate) suspicion they have cast over their motivation. Which is exactly what the anti-Zionist Jews predicted. In the end I think there's going to be an open discussion of all this, and that's to the good.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

My Iraqi born friend describes Iraq:
===========================
a. 50% Shi'ite and 50% Sunni.
===========================
b. Saddam Hussein recruited many Shi'ite into his army and secret police, because of their poor background, he could count on their loyalty
==========================

In this light, the USA should have encourage the Kurds, Turkomans and Arab Sunnis to create a close alliance.

This would be the right balance.

This way, Iraq would have a balanced government, preventing the Shi'ite Iraqi-Iranian alliance.

Now there is only one remedy, to expose the unjustified overreach and oppression sought by the Shi'ites.

By: Gene

Gene — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

I think the reason there was so little opposition to going to war with Iraq was that Jewish commentators, writers, reporters, who generally set the tone in such matters, were too conflicted to take a stand. Normally they would have seen right though Bush's transparent rationales for war. But this time around, they wondered if perhaps the president's neocon chorus was right--"the war will help Israel."

I remembered in March of 2003 when Dem Rep. Jim Moran urged Jews to come out publicly against the war: "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," Moran had said at the time. "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

We all know now that the leadership of most Jewish organizations favored attacking Iraq, but at the time Moran's statements were considered "shocking," by the White House, "offensive" by Democratic party leaders and anti-Semitic by some Jewish leaders, who also demanded that Moran resign. Moran apologized profusely to save his career. Thereafter no one would make the mistake of honestly explaining how and why the war got started.

By: Phil Weiss

Phil Weiss — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

Gene,
I am grateful for this comment, it is clarifying and true.
I remember when my older brother said to me, in the runup to the war, "What do you think of this war?" and I said, "It's crazy," and he said, "I protested against the Vietnam war, but my Jewish newspaper says this war could be good for Israel." I was shocked.
His attitude was widely shared, and is the reason that Tom Friedman sounds a lot like Richard Perle when he was pushng for the war. Tom Friedman, liberal hero. Until the Jewish community comes to terms with all this, there will be little clarity on the left, which Jews remain a significant component of politically.
I'm sure there's some guilt around these issues! Let's hear it.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 29 Nov 1999 23:00:00 +0000

some jews surely beleived, as did many non-jews, that taking out Saddam Hussein and enabling a democratic state to develop in Iraq would be a good thing. That it would be good for Israel for there to be a democratic state in the Middle East with greater hope for its youth and that a tyrant like Saddam who had fired missles into Israel and threatened to attack it, did not hurt either. Many people, both Jews and non-Jews, who want to see peace in the Middle East could see the value in taking out Saddam before he gained greater power. Remember, the oil for food scandal and Saddam's own campaign to convince his foes that he had WMDs gave those who were following events there reason to be concerned. Hindsight is 20/20 and of course if people knew that this is how the war would end up, they would opt for a different strategy.

Phil Weiss - your attempts to make it appear that world jewry tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the world is pathetic. Grow up already.